Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - SteelyBob

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation
« on: November 24, 2022, 06:09:12 PM »
Yes  - to scheduled times.

Following on from my last post, let's take an example. You can fly with Qantas from Perth to Johannesburg direct. It takes 9:55 hours from Johannesburg, and 11:15 hours travelling from Perth. As per my suggestion, let's split the difference and call it 10:35 hours on average. Now allow 30 mins for arrival and departure, so 10:05. The jet will average around 500mph, so that's a touch over 5000 miles.

The round earth great circle distance between those two places comes in at just under 5200 miles, so the estimate is pretty good on that basis.

Now take a look at, for example, the monopole FET map. According to the wiki, the diameter of the earth is 25,000 miles. What would you say is the distance between Perth and Johannesburg on that map? I'd say roughly 80% of the radius maybe? So about 10,000 miles?

So our aircraft is going to have to fly at roughly twice the speed. We know there aren't any supersonic airliners anymore, so what does that leave us? Either magic 'anomalous winds' that blow at 500mph in both directions or the map is hopelessly wrong?

The existence of that flight alone should be enough to completely falsify the monopole FET map. Would you agree?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation
« on: November 24, 2022, 07:19:56 AM »

Its fine saying that software was written for plane flights. Yet its so weird that on an out journey a plane can take longer than expected to get there and on the in journey it gets back quicker than expected. of course we blame tail winds or head winds for this. Isn't it remotely possible that the estimated distances were miscalculated and relying on a round earth? It never ceases to amaze me how frequently many people get off a flight an hour before they were due to land. Its actually quite worrying given the consequences of a plane taking off and no one knowing when it will eventually land.

This has been done to death here n several occasions. Flight times of international services are extremely good evidence for the earth being spherical. A genuinely interested (dare I say zetetic?) sceptical person might, for example, take the average of the outbound and return flight times for a large number of different long haul routes. You could, if you wished, compare planned with actual departure and arrival times to add an extras layer of accuracy and verification.

Most airliners cruise at pretty much the same speed - around M0.75 give or take, which is around 500mph true air speed at 40,000. If you subtract 30 mins from each flight time to allow for take off and landing etc, and then work out the approximate distance based on the remaining time and 500mph, you’ll have a grid of estimated distances between major cities all over the earth.

The question, then, is: is there some way of arranging these cities on a blank page such that the distances between them are roughly coherent?

You will find that the answer is ‘no’. The only way you’ll be able to make the distances work is by doing it on a sphere.

I would say that is strong evidence for a round earth. Others might say ‘anomalous winds’, despite the obvious absurdity. What do you think?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: November 23, 2022, 07:24:45 PM »
So if we can detect curvature only a few miles out to sea, then shouldn't we be able to detect curvature accross the sea?   

I happen to believe that the earth starts to appear spherical from the sky, because of atmospheric refraction (the bending of images and light, etc)... 

Using the method of measuring two or three objects accross a certain distance from another, minimizes the same problems you get with measuring one object at a distance (on sea) - wind, ocean swell, and local refraction phenomena...  Because you can get an average of how high each "ship" is relative to one another, how verticle there masts are and the angles they point away from one another...   Doing this experiment on land with a few buildings or flag poles may also work.

Why not use the stars? Measure the elevation angle of the North Star (convenient because it doesn’t appear to move, unlike the other stars in the northern hemisphere), and measure the elevation angle above the horizon. Then move some distance north or south and repeat the exercise. Keep doing this and you’ll get a plot of lots of angles and distances. You’ll find that, for every 60 miles you move in a northerly direction, the North Star rises by 1 degree in the sky. 

You’ll very quickly see that the only possible solution that works for all the measurements is a spherical earth and a star that is a long, long way away. Try it on a flat earth, and / or with a star that is only a few thousand miles away, and it won’t work.

This is where the absurdity of FET then comes to the fore. Given that the whole theory is allegedly based on simple observations, when confronted with this very simple observation, FET proponents have to invoke ‘bendy light’, aka ‘EA’, for which they have no explanation, nor any model, nor indeed any proof whatsoever.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: November 22, 2022, 06:17:14 PM »
If you watched three sail boats sailing away and slowly disappearing because of the earths curvature, then wouldn't you need to assume that the tops of those ships wouldn't be parallel to one another? 

Sorry to hijack this post, but it is similar.

Great question.

Yes…sort of. For a typical situation out at sea, for example, the horizon is usually single digit or low double digit numbers of miles away - it depends on your elevation above the water, and on the atmospheric conditions. For those kind of distances, the difference in angle between the masts wouldn’t be noticeable. If you elevated yourself tens of miles above the surface, then you would notice a difference, not just in the left / right angle of the masts as per your diagram, but also the ‘dip’ as the ships are tilting forwards away from you.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Blatant Lies of National Geographic
« on: November 22, 2022, 04:51:28 PM »
Technically, if the earth were round, wouldn't the horizon take a spherical shape?

No. It would be appear level, because the horizon on a sphere, to an observer, is a circle whose radius varies with the observer’s height above the surface. The higher you are, the bigger the circle, but it’s the same in every direction. So no, it wouldn’t appear to curve.


Hi - you mention above that theory requires a mathematical model that is repeatable and falsifiable. If something is not falsifiable (i.e. cannot be proved wrong) does that mean it is therefore 'true/accepted'? And if so does that mean a theory is not accepted if it can be proved wrong?

Falsifiability is a necessary component part of a valid theory. If your theory cannot be falsified, then it can’t be a theory. The same applies to a hypothesis - if it isn’t falsifiable, then it isn’t a valid hypothesis.

Is something has been falsified, then it has been proven to be false.

In fairness, most of what is proposed in FET is absolutely falsifiable. The problem is that FET proponents seem to have a blind spot for things that might falsify their theory.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 07:24:36 PM »

Exactly - the earth cannot be round without gravity. Its the cart before the horse. Lets presume the earth is round then come up with a theory that stops us falling off it.
And you mention 'credible explanation'. That doesn't meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' test.

People didn’t presume the earth was round. They made a series of observations, such as those I mentioned earlier which you have studiously ignored, and the only possible explanation for all of those observations was a spherical planet. Gravity doesn’t just explain our own experiences standing here on earth, but also observations of the other planets, their moons and the sun.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 02:49:47 PM »

I am not missing anything. I am doubting the round earth theory. As science only uses gravity to explain things. What if there was no such thing. And we stand on a flat earth with nothing but our weight holding us down? That's what this forum is about - correct me if i am wrong (Moderator) but the forum assumes a flat earth. Hence the nature of the discussions.

Well, if your contention is that gravity doesn’t exist, then rivers flowing south to north is a tiny, tiny thing compared to some more fundamental issues. Clearly, the earth can’t be round without gravity.

At first glance, you are correct. The earth appears flat. It’s a reasonable starting point. But then you look a bit closer, and things aren’t so simple. As per another thread running at the moment…why are there visible horizons? What is a horizon, given that we can see tall distant objects beyond it? Why does the elevation of stars vary with our latitude? Indeed, why can I know how far north I am simply by measuring the elevation angle of the north star? That wouldn’t work unless the earth was round and the star was a long, long way away.

And, as you make more and more of these observations, you realise that the only credible explanation is a spherical earth, orbiting the sun, with a gravitational force acting between objects according to the product of their masses and the inverse of the squared distance between them.

That model, an explanation for what we observe, works perfectly to explain what we see and detect.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 21, 2022, 12:05:56 PM »

You could use that analogy to everything. Therefore our heads are not at the top as our feet could also be the top. Science does need tome constants and when someone writes up an experiment is it not reasonable to refer to something like 'it took the mixture 45 seconds to rise to the 'TOP' of the glass'? Do scientists use things that have a top and bottom or do they not?

Yes - we need datums to work from. Sometimes they are arbitrary - like which way we orientate north-south on a map. Sometimes they mean something. In normal life ‘top’ usually means the highest point of something, but the important point you seem to be missing is that height is measured with respect to the surface of the planet. Somebody at mean sea level in Australia is at the same ‘height’ as somebody at mean sea level in Europe. They would have the same gravitational potential energy per unit mass.

We do generally draw the earth north-up. It’s entirely arbitrary - we could draw it the other way round with the South Pole at the top. Globe models, like the ones you see on people’s desks, are normally tilted around 20 degrees to reflect the orientation with respect to the sun and our orbital path, but they too could just be flipped upside down - it’s completely arbitrary, but has now become an accepted convention.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 20, 2022, 08:28:57 PM »

But it is not likely that the source will be higher on a globe earth - if we use the globe (north to south0 as height). height is a figure commonly used as 'above sea level'. I get what you say but can you picture it? A river flowing 4 or 5000 miles in a northerly direction? It only happens with 2 main rivers but the fact it does does make one think.

Well, that's pretty much what the Nile is, right? The equator only means anything in the context of the rotation of the earth - if you forget about the rotation, it could be just an arbitrary line. Indeed, if western civilisation had begun in the Southern Hemisphere, our maps would probably be orientated the other way round, with the antarctic at the top of the map. If that was the case, would you take issue with rivers flowing in a southerly direction?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 20, 2022, 08:07:37 PM »
Yes I appreciate what you say. But lets for one moment visualise a land mass from Australia to the Mediterranean sea. I know this defies science but it would look so 'wrong' if a river flowed from Sydney to the Med. Does that make a little more sense as i feel this might require further consideration?

If the source of the river at Sydney was at a higher elevation than the end of the river in the Med, then yes, it would flow that way.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator
« on: November 20, 2022, 07:59:07 PM »
If we imagine  people hanging upside down from the globe in the southern hemisphere how can the Nile defy 'gravity' and flow in an upwards direction?

Gravity acts perpendicular to the earth's surface - it feels the same wherever you are on earth, with the only small exception being that it feels a very small bit less powerful at the equator due to the earth's rotation - fun fact! Downhill is downhill - if you move from a point that is higher than another point, with the datum being mean sea level, then you are moving 'downhill', regardless of latitude.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum
« on: November 20, 2022, 07:48:47 PM »
Since you asked, however…because the gravitational force between two objects depends on the mass of both objects. If that seems implausible, it is no different to, for example, the force between two charged particles, where the mutual force depends on the charge of both particles.

Actually it's much different.

Particles charged with different amounts of force and charge will produce different levels of attraction.

You are mixing terms here. You don't charge a particle with 'force and charge'.

Two particles will experience a mutual attractive or repelling force depending on the product of the two charges and the inverse of the square of the distance between them. This is Coulomb's law. The formula is essentially the same as the formula for the gravitational force between two objects, it's just that the two charges are replaced by the two masses, and the constant is of course different.

If you take issue with one formula, then you must take issue with both. Your original question appears to misunderstand or misrepresent the problem, implying the force is only on one object. You are missing out that when gravity acts on, for example, a feather, there is actually a mutual force acting between the feather and the earth. We obviously tend to neglect the force on the earth as it is so trivial, but the principle is no different to that of two charged particles, one with a massive charge and the other with a negligible one.

Different masses of particles will also accelerate at different accelerations due to their inertial drag, for the same reason why it is harder to push a bowling ball across the floor than a marble. More mass means more inertial resistance.

Gravity behaves differently than this, however. All bodies fall together at the same rate in a laboratory vacuum chamber regardless of their mass. No difference has been detected. This even applies to individual atoms with different masses.

An object will accelerate in direct proportion to the net force acting upon it. An object experiencing a gravity force from a planet, such as earth, will experience a force in proportion to its own mass. Double the mass, and double the force. That is why objects of different mass accelerate at the same rate when falling under gravity. Clearly, in the real world, air resistance steps in and causes differences, but as you rightly say, in vacuum conditions no difference is detected. That is precisely what we would expect from the principles.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum
« on: November 20, 2022, 07:08:26 PM »
This opposite force created by accelerating matter is new to me...  I'll investigate and thank you for your time.

Tron, just examine this:

What's really interesting about it is that the sled on the left is propelled at half the speed at the the sled on the right. Reason being, the left sled is twice the mass as the right sled sled. Pretty cool how that works.

Additionally, it's a pretty clear example of Newton's 3rd. You have to ask yourself why do the sleds both propel and why do they propel opposite one another. It clearly demonstrates exactly what you mentioned: "opposite force created by accelerating matter".

Keep exploring. There's lots of cool stuff around rockets, physics, etc.

Since it appears that you have discovered Newton's laws, and know that different amount of mass will be moved differently in response to a force, more massive requiring more force, maybe you can explain for us how gravity knows to apply different amounts of force to a bowling ball and a feather to cause them to 'fall' together at the same rate in a vacuum chamber.

I agree - this is different thread territory.

Since you asked, however…because the gravitational force between two objects depends on the mass of both objects. If that seems implausible, it is no different to, for example, the force between two charged particles, where the mutual force depends on the charge of both particles.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum
« on: November 20, 2022, 09:14:42 AM »
If Jets and Rockets are propelled as a reaction to moving the mass of fuel at a high velocity in one direction rather than on the exhaust fumes pushing against air, then there should be some information which could confirm the answer. 

Do Rockets and Jet engines maintain constant thrust regardless of their altitude, air pressure, or speed? I understand Jets depend on air intake for power so maybe this can't be answered.  But this kind of data would help understand what principles are propelling these vehicles.

The answer to that is in the equation that I showed you, which is repeated on the diagram that you posted. Look at the terms in the equation - all the answers are there.

Notice that there isn’t a term for the rocket’s velocity - so, no, thrust doesn’t depend on the velocity of the vehicle.

But there is a term involving the static pressure. So yes, thrust does change with altitude. It actually increases as pressure reduces, so, and I’m now repeating myself from an earlier post, when you get to what is essentially a vacuum in space thrust is maximised.

Again, all of this is testable and proven down here on earth. If you’re arguing that rockets wouldn’t work in a vacuum it’s important to understand that you aren’t just arguing about that, you are challenging the entire physics behind how rockets work - principles that have been proven numerous times in both labs and flight tests.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum
« on: November 18, 2022, 10:38:47 PM »
.. A vacuum, which by definition pulls things away from an object; 

It’s hard to know where to start when you’re so all over the place. It’s ok to ask questions, but when people show you the answers, you need to actually listen and learn. I mentioned, and another poster actually linked to detailed information about the rocket equation. This isn’t fiction - it is extensively used and tested.

Your ‘definition’ of a vacuum simply isn’t even close to being the definition of a vacuum.

If you look at the equation for thrust from a rocket:

Thrust = F = dm/dt Ve+ (Pe-Po)Ae

you can see that part of the thrust depends on the static pressure, Po, around the rocket. That means less thrust at sea level, for example, than at 40,000 feet - all other things being equal, of course. Extend that logic and, as you go further away from earth and the static pressure reduces, the thrust will actually increase. In a vacuum, that term disappears from the equation - but the rocket is still developing thrust.

If you disagree with this, you aren’t just arguing with the fact that rockets work in space, you’re arguing with the variation in thrust at different pressures in the atmosphere, which is widely tested and understood.

Maybe it’s time to rethink and admit that you’re wrong?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The cosmos, confusion, and further understanding
« on: November 16, 2022, 11:01:34 PM »
There are multiple phenomena that can cause a sinking ship effect - swells, refraction, etc -

We were talking about the specific claim that the hull of a ship can be hidden with distance due to lack of optical resolution and then restored with optical zoom. There is a simple experiment that you can perform to demonstrate this:

The experiment is ludicrous. You are merely presenting a very thin hull, and showing that, of course, your eyes will struggle to resolve the thin line first as distance increases. That is not surprising. But, as other posters have pointed out, that doesn't match up with what we actually observe, where ships with hulls comparable in height in to their superstructures still have the same thing happen, with the obscured part remaining constant regardless of magnification.

The page on the wiki displays a complete misunderstanding of optics as well. It says:

However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer

This suggests that the angular relationship of light rays arriving at an observer changes with varying eyesight or magnification. This is nonsensical. A ray of light does not deviate according to the eye of the beholder, as it were.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rockets work in a vacuum.
« on: October 26, 2022, 10:04:35 AM »
I've been digging into this topic and I'm sort of on the fence still. If you launched an unbreakable balloon into space filled with highly pressurized air and released it out of the tip, I think it would probably stand still and just lose air.

No, that’s not right, as that would violate conservation of momentum. If the air is leaving the balloon in one direction, then the balloon has to move in the other direction to balance out the momentum. In simple terms, the mass times the velocity of the air on one direction will equal the mass times the velocity of the balloon.

If you want to really get into it, you’ll see that the rocket thrust equation has both a momentum term (the mass flow rate x velocity) and a pressure term (the net pressure across the rocket / balloon etc) so the ambient static pressure does make a difference - you actually get higher thrust in a vacuum all things being equal.

There’s nothing in the wiki that I can see about this, so can we conclude that the general tfes consensus is that rockets can work in a vacuum?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Comprehensive explanation for sunsets
« on: October 04, 2022, 08:41:47 AM »
The idea that anyone should be "explaining observations" rather than drawing conclusions from them is at the core of the disagreement here. We're not trying to "explain sunsets", despite the repeated cries of those who claim to support science, but whose actions betray them. We observe, hypothesise, verify, and conclude.

That seems at odds with the wiki, which frequently uses the word 'explain' in exactly that manner, for example:

Horizon limits are easily explained by the fact that air is not transparent and refraction diverts/scatters the rays over a large dense medium, so it is not possible to see past a certain distance.

Aside from being obviously wrong (why can I see the top half of a distant ship, or mountain, but not the bottom, if the cause is the limited visibility?), that is clearly an attempt to explain something, in precisely the fashion that you are claiming that you do not do. Moreover, where is the verification of this? What we observe directly contradicts this hypothesis.

I would suggest that a more fundamental question for FET is not so much why there are sunsets, or why things disappear from the bottom up as they get more distant, but why there is a horizon in the first place. If the earth was flat, then we wouldn't expect a distinct, crisp horizon at a relatively short distance from the observer. The wiki is muddled on this - in one place, we have this:

Light from objects too far away either hits the ground or is bent upwards before it reaches us. This also explains the "sinking ship" effect: the bottom portion of the ship appears to sink into the ocean because all of the light either hits the ocean or is bent upwards, but light from the top portion will be able to go further down before being bent upwards and becoming visible to us, since the ocean is lower relative to it.

But then elsewhere we have this:

It is believed that the bending of light does not simulate the rate of globe earth curvature. Instead, the bending occurs more gradually over a greater distance.

But if the bendy light doesn't bend enough to 'simulate' (?) the rate of globe earth curvature, why would there be a distinct horizon behind which things appear to disappear?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Evidence of the firmament
« on: September 19, 2022, 02:09:36 PM »
Bob, all of the data I use is 99% "science approved" or from reputable institutions which I think your referring to..  Look again at the data I provided..

But you also said:

I'm aware on a flat earth the altitude of the Atmosphere would have to be higher at one pole and lower at another pole to form a dome.  I can think of a few possibilities like air pressure but more investigation is needed.  Edit:. It's possible the lower atmosphere is condensed by cold temps in the center of a flat Earth but that the higher thinner air collects in the middle and maintains a domed shape.] I'm aware on a flat earth the altitude of the Atmosphere would have to be higher at one pole and lower at another pole to form a dome.  I can think of a few possibilities like air pressure but more investigation is needed.  Edit:. It's possible the lower atmosphere is condensed by cold temps in the center of a flat Earth but that the higher thinner air collects in the middle and maintains a domed shape.

Those two statements cannot coexist. There is a mountain of data pertaining to atmospheric composition at different latitudes, and none of it comes out dome-shaped.

That link I posted was merely one of hundreds of research papers and articles covering this field. You can’t just dismiss it all and just arbitrarily determine that it must be dome-shaped.

[edited to sort out html error]

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 28  Next >